Sunday, June 29, 2008

This is part of an email exchange with Martin from England. He does a great job of describing the nature of communitarian governance. In England it's known as Common Purpose.

Dear Niki,

Thank you for your reply concerning the 'Communitarians'.

The same structures and mechanisms exist here in England, although with different names. They share the same insidious, clandestine sub-agendas and have the same goals. As where you live, people's lives are badly affected.

Social engineering and mind manipulation are the tools of the evangelicals. As such they are the ideal, ready-made tools for exploiting the people. In addition, radicalising faiths have been infiltrated as part of the wider government remit of Control or Destroy, where the assumption is that anything that resists the government agenda must be an enemy.

In the UK, faith-based organisations that toe the party line are rewarded with grant money, control of social re-engineering projects, and given much public hubris and kudos. There is no benefit to the people, of course, and much of the money goes missing along the line.

What I have found particularly disturbing is that, whatever religion is used to impose government will, the practitioners ( aka puppets ) discard all the benelovent tenets of their respective faiths and change from being genuine, happy, nice people to hypocritical, cruel and disturbed people. Yet, even though such puppets are expendable, they still follow the cash.

I am not talking about small amounts of money here, the erstwhile hidden agenda costs literally billions to set up, maintain and deliver. In the UK the 'project' is dependent upon fraud and corruption for its finances.

At the set-up phases of these multi-million pound community plans local 'leaders' are selected to represent that community, and then formed into a group that is falsely given representative status so as to exert influence, interest and control far beyond any legitmacy. The churches participate in this deception, although the common purpose beind the selection process is top-down control.

What is happening is the creation and maintenance of an illusion of citizen participation and democracy, whilst central control is ever-strengthened. This does not come cheap.

The reason that I was asking about the Mormons in particular is becasue they have upped their game recently in the UK, at least locally. This is not something sinister when taken in isolation. However, when taken in the context of where they are targeting, who they are targeting, the timing of their targeting, and the local demographics, it would make sense to employ the services of a group that trains its followers in persuasion techniques.

The religion part becomes an irrelevance. The areas chosen are where vast sums of 'regeneration'money are targeted. In the UK, this means that poor people are moved out of otherwise nice areas for developers to turn the land into exclusive estates for the rich. The people being targeted are those who would most likely to oppose the agenda, i.e. those disaffected and disappointed, who would later become a problem. What we are seeing is that, as part of a wider agenda, the government is contracting the expert services of the faiths to deliver social control - and if they collect any converts, that would be a bonus.

The 'faith industry' is not the only delivery sector, the 'charity' and 'community' sectors have been similarly hijacked.

An as yet unnamed elite, lawless organisation is actually running the country by stealth, in effect a silent insurrection from within. The control must be total, absolute, and lead top-down from the centre. What and who cannot be controlled must be destroyed by nulabor.

Meanwhile, it is daily reported how our leaders lie, cheat, steal, bully and abuse, yet there is a reticence - for fear of retribution - to using the appropriate description - institutionalised corruption - that has repeatedly, relentlessly, ruthlessly, systematically and cynically destroyed the lives of anyone arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat.

This nulabor government is corrupt. The nulabor corruption is absolute, lead from the top down, imposed through all tiers of social and government control, down to street level. Being rotten to the core and from the core, everything it touches it taints. Having neither the ability nor inclination to correct itself, outside intervention is indicated.

In effect, the government has decalred war upon its citizens. The country's rulers have become the enemy of the state. Although it was several hundred years ago that this situation last arose in England, it would appear that the bloody lesson has not been learned - or perhaps it has, hence the need for secrecy and absolute control.

The unnamed elite is sometimes referred to as 'Common Purpose' - a UK-created tool that now extends to a pan-european platform. I believe that 'Common Purpose', in its turn, is controlled by a higher elite. Please let me know if you would like details of this group, as I am sure that we will find many points of synergy.

You are so right to mention about communication being vital. In the UK, control of the flow of information has been a priority for the elite cadre that is really running the country whilst bypassing government institutions and the judiciary. The same principle of Control or Destory applies, where those involved with simply telling the truth are branded as traitors, seditious, insurrectionists, dangerous, etc. Locally at least, indepedent publications were either targeted for control, sabotaged, or swamped with local government propaganda. Even groups of people simply talking to each other outside of government control results in top-down abuses of participating citizens.

Regardsmartin

As one of those involved with telling the truth about the new government here in the free USA, I can verify that we are branded exactly the same way as truthseekers in England. As one of my neighbors (who stops by occassionally to have me do things for her) recently said, "Oh stop it, nothing bad is happening to America, you're just paranoid. Can we talk about something more fun .. like my idea! I want you to write me an application for a government grant." She couldn't understand why I won't help her go after all that "free money." Now I'm being attacked for refusing to help people apply for communitarian funding. This is from the same lady who excitedly told me all about the "new" community cop in Chitina and the new police roadblocks and police stalking going on. I was trying to explain why it's happening when she cut me off. Gee, think I should write her grant proposal? Oh yeah, she needs it for free too, because "idealistic" Americans don't think they have to pay for anything I do for them. As brainwashed global communitarians, my people think I should "help" them because I know how. Each according to his need and all that lofty Marxist crap really means the new right to steal my brain, waste my time and discount the years I spent studying and writing as "boring." I should be using my free time to help the communitarians take over my neighborhood. Oh... okay.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Well now it's possible that I may be able to go back and read Rand without looking for her role in the dialectic. That's rather uplifting news. I need something strong to re-believe in right now, and even if individualism plays directly into the dialectical arguments I'm not concerned any longer about how I am "perceived." Just like the U.S. Bill of Rights, Rand's individualism may exist outside as well as inside the dialectic, just like me. I finally do not care what people think about me or my contributions to the global body of anti-NWO literature. As I'm editing the manifesto for print this is a great topic to get my mind in a refreshed direction.

The following is an except from Bobby Garner's email exchange with his elist, and it explains exactly why I never supported LaRouche and yet felt absolutely free to cite him and his editor at EIR, Anton Chaitkin; I cite anyone who says anything pertaining to my work. Unlike Etzioni, whom I often cite, Bobby Garner is one of my most favorite people in the world:

{begin quote}

"An EIR Press Release of Oct. 17, 2006 states: "A lecture titled "Destroying Islamic Totalitarianism: The West's Moral Imperative," featured Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. According to the Daily Bruin newspaper (Oct. 17, 2006), Yaron suggested that a way to defeat these regimes [Islamic totalitarian regimes] is to kill up to hundreds of thousands of their supporters. He said only resurgence in the pride for Western civilization can help the West defeat those Islamic states."

"Contrast that with Ayn Rand's own words concerning the Roots of War: "If peace were the goal of today's intellectuals, a failure of that magnitude -- and the evidence of unspeakable suffering on so large a scale -- would make them pause and check their statist premises. Instead, blind to everything but their hatred for capitalism, they are now asserting that "poverty breeds wars" (and justifying war by sympathizing with a "material greed" of that kind). But the question is: What breeds poverty? If you look a the world of today and if you look back at history, you will see the answer: the degree of a country's freedom is the degree of its prosperity."

"Rand formulated the principle of "Rational Self-interest" to describe the function of Individualism in the exercise of individual rights. Rational self interest does not violate the ideals of individual rights as she defines them.

"She defined laissez-faire capitalism as: "The ideal political-economic system.... It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." - Introducing Objectivism

"The most vocal criticism of Ayn Rand revolves around one solitary fact: that 1) she blazed her own trail and did not conform to any accepted form of expression or philosophical thought, and 2) she failed to base her own thoughts on previous works of more acceptable experts, and 3) because she appears to quote others with whom she has fundamental disagreements. Those same critics, exhibiting the same delusional insanity, use the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute to defame and discredit her ideals as she expressed them.

Leonard Peikoff: Founder of ARI. Born in Canada, 1933, Peikoff befriended Ayn Rand in 1951. He obtained his doctorate in philosophy at New York University, 1964, studying under Sidney Hook (founder of the University Centers for a Rational Alternative, the predecessor to Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and Alumni). Less than a month after the attacks of Sept. 11, with a full-page ad in the New York Times, Peikoff was calling for attacks, not on the Taliban or al-Qaeda, but on Iran... - EIR

"So, Leonard Peikoff "befriended" Ayn Rand, thus forming an association with her, then after her death, constructed the strawman (Ayn Rand Institute), and then along comes socialist LaRouche et al, who burn it down destroying Ayn Rand's Ideals of individual rights along with it. Or so they, and every other Communist/Socialist/Progressive

"There is a lot more detail to this method of deconstruction, but this is sufficient to accurately illustrate the cooperation that goes on between all of todays political ideologies who offer false choices, and put up false fronts of being at odds with one another while working toward a Common Purpose.

"Please address all replies to the topic of Ayn Rand's Ideals concerning Individualism and individual rights.If you desire to refute her arguments please do so on the basis of her own comments, and in your own words.I'm not interested in the philosophical drivel of some establishment blessed Ayn Rand expert, so don't try repeating their arguments.If you get the impression that my attitude parallels Ayn Rand's, then thank you for noticing my claim to Individualism and innate Individual Rights in lieu of the bogus, humanist, UN sponsored and "granted", "human rights".Bobby Garnerhttp://www.congregator.net/http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/

Thursday, June 26, 2008

I read my dad's copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead when I was in the fifth grade. Dagny Taggert became my hero (next to Scarlett O'hara). I revisited Ayn Rand's work in the early 1980s, when Libertarianism gained ground in mainstream Alaskan politics. I discounted her "theory" in 2000 when I found out the Libertarian Party was formed as an internationalist party promoting free trade, open borders and global citizenship. Then I saw how easily it plays into the Libertarian/Communitarian "divide." (See E.J. Dionne's Washington Post editorials.) There was also the fact that the Libertarian leadership refuses to make ANY public statement about communitarianism (because it's too confusing to the masses).

I've often been labled a selfish individualist, even though I reject BOTH sides of the dialectic between capitalism/free trade vrs communism/socialism. My work can often be found under the heading of "Individualism" but that's only on websites that do not understand how I think about the "two sides." My work shows both were essential to introducing the world to a final communitarian synthesis. Without an antithesis there can be no synthesis. I actually suspect that Rand was a communitarian all along, but I haven't gone back through her work to show exactly why I think this way. It could just be how her work was used politically. I do think it's important to consider how perfectly Rand's objectivism plays into the globalist's games.

The article below was forwarded from Bobby Garner. It shows why I used to love Ayn Rand's philosophy and so foolishly once thought the Libertarian Party was going to help America. If it didn't pander the dialectic it would absolutely define why I defend our national law. It protects individuals, and it makes it illegal for the majority to enforce communitarian law against the minority. U.S. law cannot protect the faceless community collective, if it does it's not U.S. law.

{Begin quote}

"Ayn Rand is perhaps the most hated person by the New Age. One of the frequently stated reasons is based on the activities of the Rand Institute which was named in her honor (this mistake was corrected in a later email from Bobby~ed.). The Rand Institute obviously fell under the control of people who wished to capitalized on her ideals of individualism in order to justify their greed and avarice for economic and political power such as we have seen in the perverted Wall Street Capitalism driven by speculators who care nothing for productive labor, but only "productivity" which is anti-man and pro machine (listen to the market analysts). Another reason for the hatred of her ideals is founded on the activities of the neo-conservative administration which has, since 9/11/2001, presided over the most egregious transgressions of individual freedoms and liberties that the world has ever seen outside the communist blocks of Russia and China, Nazi Germany, as well as modern Palestine.

"She ends the answer to the 12th question on a note which could be construed as a belief in the superiority of man, but certainly not in the same sense of the New Age belief that they are gods with the right to exercise god like authority over their fellow man. Rand's idea of man's individuality is traceable to the old establishment which has been under attack since the 1960's counter-culture, which is another reason why she is so hated. The following explains the real reasons why all sides (liberal, New Age, progressive and conservative) hate the ideology of Ayn Rand, and why all political parties cooperate with the New Age Communitarian agenda through Community Development money grants and low interest loans."

Textbook of Americanism

By Ayn Rand, 1946

[These articles were written in 1946 for and appeared originally in THE VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The subject of these articles was limited to the sphere of politics, for the purpose of defining and clarifying the basic principles involved in political issues. The series is incomplete; the twelve questions reprinted here were only the first third of a longer project; the rest has remained unwritten.]

1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.

Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

2. What Is a Social System?

A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Isthe power of society limited or unlimited?

Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.

Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.

Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law—which protects his right to life—and they are punished.

Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized.

Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number.

In the first case, die law represents a moral principle.

In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there's enough of them.

Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at all times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others with him.

Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one another—and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has none. Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave—according to the size of his gang.

An example of the first system: The United States of America. (See: The Declaration of Independence.)

An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or “kulaks” were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.

The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing except brutality.

Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social system. You have to start by answering the first question. Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.

3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?

The basic principle of the United States of America is Individualism.

America is built on the principle that Man possesses Inalienable Rights;

that these rights belong to each man as an individual—not to “men” as a group or collective;

that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, individual possession of each man—not the public, social, collective possession of a group;

that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth as a man—not by an act of society;

that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross;

that these rights are man's protection against all other men;

that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of freedom, justice, human dignity, and decency.

The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document that limits the rights of man—but a document that limits the power of society over man.

4. What Is a Right?

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot.

5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?

The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men. The Right of Liberty means Man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative, and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness, and to work for its achievement so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

6. How Do We Recognize One Another's Rights?

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man. and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.

Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else's expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.

An individualist is a man who says: “I’ll not run anyone's life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”

A collectivist is a man who says: “Let's get together, boys—and then anything goes!”

7. How Do We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated?

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER MAN.

The practical rule of conduct in a free society, a society of Individualism, is simple and clear-cut: you cannot expect or demand any action from another man, except through his free, voluntary consent.

Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist trick which goes like this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of freedom—freedom is whatever society decides it is.

It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.

Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.

8. What Is the Proper Function of Government?

The proper function of government is to protect the individual rights of man; this means to protect man against brute force.

In a proper social system, men do not use force against one another; force may be used only in self-defense, that is, in defense of a right violated by force. Men delegate to the government the power to use force in retaliation—and only in retaliation.

The proper kind of government does not initiate the use of force. It uses force only to answer those who have initiated its use. For example when the government arrests a criminal, it is not the government that violates a right; it is the criminal who has violated a right and by doing so has placed himself outside the principle of rights, where men can have no recourse against him except through force.

Now it is important to remember that all actions defined as criminal in a free society are actions involving force and only such actions are answered by force.

Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as “A murderer commits a crime against society.” It is not society that a murderer murders, but an individual man. It is not a social right that he breaks, but an individual right. He is not punished for hurting a collective. He has not hurt a whole collective—he has hurt one man. If a criminal robs ten men—it is still not “society” that he has robbed, but ten individuals. There are no crimes against “society”—all crimes are committed against specific men, against individuals. And it is precisely the duty of a proper social system and of a proper government to protect an individual against criminal attack—against force.

When, however, a government becomes an initiator of force, the injustice and moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable.

For example: When a Collectivist government orders a man to work and attaches him to a job, under penalty of death or imprisonment, it is the government that initiates the use of force. The man has done no violence to anyone—but the government uses violence against him. There is no possible justification for such a procedure in theory. And there is no possible result in practice—except the blood and the terror which you can observe in any Collectivist country.

The moral perversion involved is this: If men had no government and no social system of any kind, they might have to exist through sheer force and fight one another in any disagreement; in such a state, one man would have a fair chance against one other man: but he would have no chance against ten others. It is not against an individual that a man needs protection—but against a group. Still, in such a state of anarchy, while any majority gang would have its way, a minority could fight them by any means available. And the gang could not make its rule last.

Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy: it takes away from man even the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal—and resistance to it illegal. It gives the sanction of law to the organized brute force of a majority (or of anyone who claims to represent it)-and turns the minority into a helpless, disarmed object of extermination. If you can think of a more vicious perversion of justice—name it.

In actual practice, when a Collectivist society violates the rights of a minority (or of one single man), the result is that the majority loses its rights as well, and finds itself delivered into the total power of a small group that rules through sheer brute force.

If you want to understand and keep clearly in mind the difference between the use of force as retaliation (as it is used by the government of an Individualist society) and the use of force as primary policy (as it is used by the government of a Collectivist society), here is the simplest example of it: it is the same difference as that between a murderer and a man who kills in self-defense. The proper kind of government acts on the principle of man's self-defense. A Collectivist government acts like a murderer.

9. Can There Be A “Mixed” Social System?

There can be no social system which is a mixture of Individualism and Collectivism. Either individual rights are recognized in a society, or they are not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized.

What frequently happens, however, is that a society based on Individualism does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence to observe its own principle consistently in every practical application. Through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloppiness, such a society passes laws and accepts regulations which contradict its basic principle and violate the rights of man. To the extent of such violations, society perpetrates injustices, evils, and abuses. If the breaches are not corrected, society collapses into the chaos of Collectivism.

When you see a society that recognizes man's rights in some of its laws but not in others, do not hail it as a “mixed “ system and do not conclude that a compromise between basic principles, opposed in theory, can be made to work in practice. Such a society is not working; it is merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes time. Nothing falls to pieces immediately—neither a human body nor a human society.

10. Can A Society Exist Without a Moral Principle?

A great many people today hold the childish notion that society can do anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary, rights are only an illusion. and expediency is the practical guide to action.

It is true that society con abandon moral principles and turn itself into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true that a man can cut his own throat anytime he chooses. But a man cannot do this if he wishes to survive. And society cannot abandon moral principles if it expects to exist.

Society is a large number of men who live together in the same country, and who deal with one another. Unless there is a defined, objective moral code, which men understand and observe, they have no way of dealing with one another—since none can know what to expect from his neighbor. The man who recognizes no morality is a criminal; you can do nothing when dealing with a criminal, except try to crack his skull before he cracks yours. You have no other language, no terms of behavior mutually accepted. To speak of a society without moral principles is to advocate that men live together like criminals.

We are still observing, by tradition, so many moral precepts that we take them for granted, and do not realize how many actions of our daily lives are made possible only by moral principles. Why is it safe for you to go into a crowded department store, make a purchase and come out again? The crowd around you needs goods, too; the crowd could easily overpower the few salesgirls, ransack the store, and grab your packages and pocketbook as well. Why don’t they do it? There is nothing to stop them and nothing to protect you—except the moral principle of your individual right of life and property.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that crowds are restrained merely by fear of policemen There could not be enough policemen in the world if men believed that it is proper and practical to loot. And if men believed this, why shouldn’t the policemen believe it, too? Who, then, would be the policemen?

Besides, in a Collectivist society the policemen's duty is not to protect your rights, but to violate them.

It would certainly be expedient for the crowd to loot the department store—if we accept the expediency of the moment as a sound and proper rule of action. But how many department stores, how many factories, farms or homes would we have, and for how long, under this rule of expediency?

If we discard morality and substitute for it the collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right because it's done by a majority (this being the only standard of right and wrong), how are men to apply this in practice to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.

If you think that this is just abstract theory, take a look at Europe for a practical demonstration. In Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, private citizens did the foulest work of the G.P.U. and the Gestapo, spying on one another, delivering their own relatives and friends to the secret police and the torture chambers. This was the result in practice of Collectivism in theory. This was the concrete application of that empty, vicious Collectivist slogan which seems so high-sounding to the unthinking: “The public good comes above any individual rights.”

Without individual rights, no public good is possible.

Collectivism, which places the group above the individual and tells men to sacrifice their rights for the sake of their brothers, results in a state where men have no choice but to dread, hate and destroy their brothers.

Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation and good will among men, all those things considered socially desirable, are possible only under a system of Individualism, where each man is safe in the exercise of his individual rights and in the knowledge that society is there to protect his rights, not to destroy them. Then each man knows what he may or may not do to his neighbors, and what his neighbors (one or a million of them) may or may not do to him. Then he is free to deal with them as a friend and an equal.

Without a moral code no proper human society is possible.

Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is possible.

11. Is “The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number” A Moral Principle?

’The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.

This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynch mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

The unthinking believe that this slogan implies something vaguely noble and virtuous, that it tells men to sacrifice themselves for the greatest number of others. If so, should the greatest number of men wish to be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the smallest number who would be vicious and accept it? No? Well, then should the smallest number be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the greatest number who would be vicious?

The unthinking assume that every man who mouths this slogan places himself unselfishly with the smaller number to be sacrificed to the greatest number of others. Why should he? There is nothing in the slogan to make him do this. He is much more likely to try to get in with the greatest number, and start sacrificing others. What the slogan actually tells him is that he has no choice, except to rob or be robbed, to crush or get crushed.

The depravity of this slogan lies in the implication that “the good” of a majority must be achieved through the suffering of a minority; that the benefit of one man depends upon the sacrifice of another.

If we accept the Collectivist doctrine that man exists only for the sake of others, then it is true that every pleasure he enjoys (or every bite of food) is evil and immoral if two other men want it. But, on this basis, men cannot eat, breathe, or love. All of that is selfish. (And what if two other men want your wife?) Men cannot live together at all, and can do nothing except end up by exterminating one another.

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible.

Do not think that the opposite of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is “the greatest good for the smallest number.” The opposite is: the greatest good he can achieve by his own free effort, to every man living.

If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve the American way of life, the greatest contribution you can make is to discard, once and for all, from your thinking, from your speeches, and from your sympathy, the empty slogan of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Reject any argument, oppose any proposal that has nothing but this slogan to justify it. It is a booby-trap. It is a precept of pure Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call yourself an Individualist. Make your choice. It is one or the other.

12. Does The Motive Change The Nature Of A Dictatorship?

The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means.

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate—not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You cannot say that “man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday,” just as you cannot say that “man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,” or “man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose.”

Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as “semi-inalienable” and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights who may violate them at his discretion. Who? Why, society—that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the Collective. Who decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit that you are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as “the middle of the road.” Individualism and Collectivism are not two sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They are two roads going into opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror and destruction. The choice is yours to make.

The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the world is not due to any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people who oppose them actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a principle is accepted, it is not the man who is half-hearted about it, but the man who is whole-hearted that's going to win; not the man who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is most consistent. If you enter a race, saying: “I only intend to run the first ten yards,” the man who says: “I’ll run to the finish line,” is going to beat you. When you say: “I only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit,” the Communist or Fascist who says “I’m going to destroy all human rights” will beat you and win. You’ve opened the way for him.

By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and evasion, men have now fallen into a Collectivist trap, on the question of whether a dictatorship is proper or not. Most people give lip-service to denunciations of dictatorship. But very few take a clear-cut stand and recognize dictatorship for what it is: an absolute evil in any form, by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose whatsoever.

A great many people now enter into an obscene kind of bargaining about differences between “a good dictatorship” and a “bad dictatorship,” about motives, causes, or reasons that make dictatorship proper. For the question: “Do you want dictatorship?,” the Collectivists have substituted the question: “What kind of dictatorship do you want?” They can afford to let you argue from then on; they have won their point.

A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if it's “for a bad motive,” but quite all right and even desirable if it's “for a good motive.” Those leaning toward Communism (they usually consider themselves “humanitarians”) claim that concentration camps and torture chambers are evil when used “selfishly,” “for the sake of one race,” as Hitler did, but quite noble when used “unselfishly,” “for the sake of the masses,” as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually consider themselves hard-boiled “realists”) claim that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when used “inefficiently,” as in Russia, but quite practical when used “efficiently,” as in Germany.

(And just as an example of where the wrong principle will lead you in practice, observe that the “humanitarians,” who are so concerned with relieving the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia, a state of misery for a whole population such as no masses have ever had to endure anywhere in history. And the hard-boiled “realists.” who are so boastfully eager to be practical, endorse, in Germany, the spectacle of a devastated country in total ruin, the end result of an “efficient” dictatorship.)

When you argue about what is a “good” or a “bad” dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship. You have accepted a premise of total evil—of your right to enslave others for the sake of what you think is good. From then on, it's only a question of who will run the Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on what is a “good” cause for brutality and what is a “bad” one. Your particular pet definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.

Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you invite all men to do the same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like your particular “good motive,” they have no choice but to rush to beat you to it and establish their own kind for their own “good motive,” to enslave you before you enslave them. A “good dictatorship” is a contradiction in terms.

The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men? The issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not?

There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a dictatorship can be justified by “a good motive” or “an unselfish motive.” All the brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind—through centuries of slow climbing out of savagery—has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have now taken refuge under a “social” cover. Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear is: “Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of the masses.” Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in men's minds.

Do not ever consider Collectivists as “sincere but deluded idealists.” The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal; brutality is not “idealistic,” no matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to “do good” by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.

"P.S. I don't know what the copyright status is on this material. I do know that the subject matter is at the very core of public discourse today, in subtle ways more so than it was at the time of its writing. Public Journalism now being what it is, I believe it deserves the widest possible distribution. If we fail to stand on the side of right, there is nothing left to stand on. The New Age Communitarians have tried desperately to conceal and deny their collectivist "ideology" (Why?), but as Rand points out, "The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of others is not an ideal". This simple reasoning is what condemns them, and thats why they hate reason in decision making because its the sole property of a unique individual and therefore, out of their power to control."

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Amitai Etzioni is a trained Fabian change agent from Israel who quietly introduced Martin Buber's communitarian synthesis to the United States in 1954. He was invited into the White House under the Carter Administration in 1979. Today he is the leader of the Communitarian Network and the author of 20+ books that he didn't write.

Etzioni is the only dual Israeli/US citizen adviser in the White House who is NEVER named in the expose lists of Zionists with influence. His vast influence on current American policies and programs is rarely covered by NWO researchers, and his position in the White House is never publically questioned by the mainstream press. He remains hidden and untouchable.

His "communitarian theory" is a hoax, and he is nothing more than a kabbalistic fraud for the U.N. We sucessfully disputed his bogus theory in our manifesto over 5 years ago. Even the Vassar sociology class this past spring couldn't come up with even a short rebuttal to our thesis. Too bad there's still not ONE university in the world that will allow for an open debate between the two schools of thought. Of course, since communitarianism is taught to students worldwide as the ultimate, perfect synthesis (giving rise to no antithesis), our thesis cannot possibly exist. What would happen to the communitarian's capitalist versus communist arguments if they had to be defended against anticommunitarianism?

Don't be deceived by pretty phrases. Communitarian writings drip with sappy hopeful dreams of building global utopia. "Obligations, duty and sacrifice" are key communitarian words that actually mean CONSCRIPTIONS, SLAVERY and POVERTY. (Isn't it interesting to learn that China is building the model communitarian slave villages when my communitarian law page claimed years ago that communist China was the model for Etzioni's communitarian governance? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20080623-0503-china-ecocity-.html)

May 23, 2008

Obama: the second half

In the my wildest dreams, during eighteen years of championing communitarianism, I did not expect a presidential candidate to be as strongly identified with this political philosophy as Obama is. It is hence particularly important that he will not limit his message to “we are not from red states, not from blue states, but from the United States”—but will add: “Ask not what your country….”; that he will go beyond we-are-all-in this-together kumbaya—to we all will have to put our shoulders to the wheel to get this train back on the tracks; from feel-good politics, sprinkled liberally with the holy water of hope that has no cost-- to political leadership which seeks a mandate for change that will require sacrifices for the common good,. In short, follow the communitarianism of responsibility above and beyond that of community-building, which is by far the less taxing part.

In The Audacity of Hope, written before Obama declared his bid for the presidency, the author showed, even more then President Kennedy, he understood that we should “ground our politics in the notion of a common good.” Obama was well versed not only in the language of rights and entitlements but also that of obligations. In those far away days, in 2005, he wrote, “We value the imperatives of family and the cross-generational obligations that family implies…We value patriotism and the obligations of citizenship, a sense of duty and sacrifice on behalf of our nation.”

Better yet, Obama used to stress that “in the end a sense of mutual understanding isn’t enough. After all, talk is cheap; like any value, empathy must be acted upon.” He recounted with pride that when he was a community organizer “[he] would often challenge neighborhood leaders by asking them where they put their time, energy and money.” In those days, he put it better than any other communitarian when he stated: “ If we aren’t willing to pay a price for our values, if we aren’t willing to make some sacrifices in order to realize them, then we should ask ourselves whether we truly believe in them at all.”

On the campaign trail many of these profound insights have faded. We now hear painless declarations such as “Our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat; that we rise or fall as one nation.” And such undemanding observations as “…too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; the] understanding that we are all tied together.”

True, occasionally we still hear echoes of the old Obama; but now the recognition that sacrifice we must appears as a sort of after thought. On the campaign trail Obama typically declares that now we “…require a new spirit of cooperation, innovation, and shared sacrifice.”

The nation is upon hard times. Its coffers are empty; creditors are at the gate; the military is exhausted and depleted; the regard with which America is held overseas is at all time low, and major economic and security challenges pile up like that many storm clouds. The nation demands a prolonged period of restoration, one in which merely replenishing all that was squandered will entail raising taxes and keeping new expenditures under a tight leash. In plain English--sacrifices. If the next president will enter office without a mandate for such give rather than take, especially for imposing a hefty tax on oil, we are likely to sink deeper into the ditch in which we have been cast rather than to start to climb out.

Granted, being straight with the American people is to engage in risky politics. Walter Mondale got his head handed to him when he candidly addressed the need for raising taxes (although his main problem was not his candor but that he seems to look forward with glee to higher taxes rather than bemoan their inevitably). Jimmy Cater got into similar trouble when he tried to impose a tiny tax (50 cents) on gasoline. And John F Kennedy did not get to “Ask Not” until his inauguration. In contrast, Ronald Regan sailed into White House on wave of hope of a new morning in America, which required no more than being there at dawn.

Maybe the best one can hope for is not a Churchillian call for ‘blood, sweat, and tears,” but for Obama as the presidential candidate to quote the author of Audacity of Hope. For him to lay out the full communitarian message-- that community building does not mean merely embracing one another and laying to rest our divisions, but also serving the common good. That our rights are sacred but so are our responsibilities.

Better, Obama can employ a communitarian device and ask the people what they believe. Do Americans see a need for sacrifices? How would they free us from our dependency on imported oil? What are they willing to do to get the nation out of debt? How far do they hold that nation should go in protecting itself from terrorism?

Monday, June 23, 2008

Several emails have come in about a recent Bill (HR 6304) that eliminated the 4th Amendment. It's interesting to see how many people think this Bill eliminated federal laws against unwarranted search and seizures. Like the Patriot Acts, it's getting a lot of attention, in both mainstream and the alternative press. Libertarian Ron Paul even synthesized with the communist ACLU to issue a statement against it. (How funny is that?) I'm beginning to wonder if this Bill isn't Wag the Dog. What else is going on right now that nobody is reporting? Anything?

Our people have lived under communitarian law for so long they can't tell the difference between the U.S. Constitution and U.N. Local Agenda 21. Anything that benefits the COMMUNITY over the INDIVIDUAL is communitarian law. Now if you oppose a communitarian regulation or requirement you are "anti-government." People accuse me of that ALL the time. They cannot grasp it anyway, so sometimes I respond: "I am PRO U.S. government, I absolutely respect U.S. law, but yes, I am most definitely ANTI-COMMUNITARIAN government, and I DO legally object to the supremacy of Communitarian Law and U.N. Local Agenda 21 in the USA."

Plus, FISA is a criminal/terrorist wiretapping/surveillance law that can hardly be expected to affect average Americans. Few will care and it will pass on in importance behind other "new" bills that will grant further power to federal COPS. That is the goal at every level of police/military enforcement... that's why the feds and the MILITARY are in charge of every new disaster area in the USA. We are already under soft communitarian martial law.)

And, they have to eliminate the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms belongs to the "community"-- Etzioni) and then maybe some other Congressman will deem it necessary to eliminate the 1st (but not the "redress of grievances" part, because nobody besides Bob Schultz even knows it exists). Obama can easily endorse ALL new communitarian laws without losing much support because Americans don't care that he's an open communitarian and they are trained to think that if they are "good" then these types of national security laws will never touch them. Our people believe that if they behave they will remain "free."

What about the Bills that actually granted local officials and police the new "right" to enter private homes, like the Domestic Violence Act of 1995 and the Violent Crime Act of 1994 (which also provided funding for the creation of the Office of Community Oriented Policing)? What about all the local ordinances and plans that give expanded powers to the police, in order to promote livability in our communities? What about the entire Sustainable Development agenda that TOTALLY wiped out millions of acres of PRIVATELY OWNED LAND since the communitarian government began promoting "quality of life" in our local COMMUNITIES?

Then there's all the accumulated case law that UPHOLDS these new Bills. What about the Dawson decision that granted police the expanded power to take rental tenants hostage during public health warrants and to search private bedrooms searching for bugs and rats and data for the new COMPASS database? What about the Hiibel decision which upheld expanded police rights to DEMAND your "PAPERS PLEASE?" What about the Kelo decision and the new right of community developers to STEAL your home? What about local VISIONS and Comprehensive Plans that EXPAND the right of COMMUNITY CITIZEN GROUPS to TEACH MORALITY to their neighbors, and to reccomend which WEEDS should be replanted with good SEEDS? (See HUD/COPS Weed&Seed Program for more on this lovely idea.) What about NAIS and the whole national mapping aspect to LOSING OUR 4th Amendment RIGHTS? What about the new penalities for refusing to fill in the new COMMUNITY CENSUS that vilolates the U.S. constitutional provision for taking a census? What if your HOME is targeted under any one of the hundreds of new acts and provisions used by the communitarians to eliminate the 4th Amendment? These are INTERDEPARTMENTAL SEARCHES by the way... and they train every CITY and COUNTY agency HOW to get one of their NEW warrants.

There are literally thousands of new regulations that protect the rights of your faceless and unrepresented COMMUNITY. We don't even know them all and we've been studying the new laws for TEN years. Any article or author who focuses on FISA without including ANY background on the hundreds of associated laws and case law that DOES EVEN MORE DAMAGE than this BILL, is, in my humble opinion, disinformation. And as soon as I'm free I'm going to look around to see what this hoopla is hiding.

What is Communitarian Governance? Well, as we shall see, it certainly IS NOT constitutional government by elected representatives of the people, although it is our elected representatives who have given us enough rope to hang ourselves, and the motivation to do it. Free trade and globalization provided the motivation, and Community Development is the rope, and they are feeding it out by the mile.

According to Portland State Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, which offers a major degree in community development (CD), its "Community-based participation in all aspects of government planning and administration..." Its "Neighborhood associations... actively involved in land use, housing, and transportation issues...", its "community-oriented policing". Its Democracy, the power of the MOB taking private property and placing it in public hands. This is not the rantings of some crackpot conspiracy theorist. Portland State University is only one among hundreds of universities around the world offering professional training in community development skills. It involves "not-for-profit organizations, private consulting firms, advocacy groups, and state, regional and local governments". Enterprise Community is a designation of the federal government which along with the money stream, promotes compliance. Compliance to what? UN Agenda 21.

The Portland area is an exciting place to enroll in our undergraduate major in community development. We understand community development as a process in which people act together to promote the social, economic, political, and physical well being of their community (emphasis mine). Students graduating with a degree in community development will be citizen activists, empowered to take leadership roles in public affairs.

Community-based participation in all aspects of government planning and administration is an established part of the political culture of our region. Neighborhood associations are actively involved in land use, housing, and transportation issues. The City of Portland has been practicing community-oriented policing for several years. Public schools are establishing community-based management councils and involving local business firms in curricular design. Community development corporations are growing rapidly in the range and sophistication of their activities. New community-oriented financial institutions and public-private partnerships are emerging to build and maintain affordable housing and to create jobs. Portland has been designated an Enterprise Community by the federal government. We anticipate continued growth in these kinds of activities in the years ahead.

Community Development majors often find careers in not-for-profit organizations, private consulting firms, advocacy groups, and state, regional and local governments. Locally, a graduate may find a career with the City of Portland, Portland Bureau of Housing and Community Development, METRO, or any of Portland's Community Development Corporations. Community development practitioners work on a range of issues including housing, community organizing, transportation, the environment, and economic development.

Admission Requirements

Students must be formally admitted to the Community Development program by submitting an application to the Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning. Candidates are selected based on written statements of intention. Fall enrollment is strongly recommended to allow students to take core classes in sequence and to create a community environment among each group of students.- http://www.pdx.edu/usp/community_development.html"

This all sounds so warm and cuddly, almost like "Mom and apple pie". Unless that is, we dig a little deeper into the framework within which this is happening. The framework was approved by an assembly of more than 178 United Nations member nations in Rio de Janerio in June of 1992. Its was called Agenda21 (Agenda for the 21st Century), theRio Declaration on Environment and Development.

" Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment." - Index to Agenda 21 Documents

This activity is already so deeply ingrained in the fabric of society, developed and expanded under every conceivable form of government at all levels and in every nation. The words are familiar to our vocabulary, and the ideas remind us of cherished memories and unfulfilled dreams, but it is laced with a deadly poison for a Republic: national, constitutional, representative government controlled by the people. It turns everything upside down where community development gives people control over their neighbors, and empowers government over the people. The result is top down control, otherwise known a dictatorship (and it will be global), which will become more and more obvious as it becomes increasingly more difficult to do anything about it. In fact, its already past the point of no return, and we cannot stop it. However, we do have a choice to make as to whether we participate in the scheme.

Where do you expect this trend to take us when its followed to its logical conclusion?

To find out if this is working in your "community", scan your local paper for keywords: Community, Development, Communication, Leadership, Training, housing, organizing, transportation, environment, economic, FCE. Especially look for any of these words in combination. These words will appear in spaces once filled with a much different set of words such as Industry, Commerce, Manufacturing, Engineering, Production, well you get the idea.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

ACL: The ACL website can be reinstated at its original site address for $50.00 a year. Please contact Jess Blank at twu.net if you can cover this expense for us; we're tapped.

PrimitivWerks: We haven't opened the bazaar or the museum yet but we will be open by Solstice (June 20). It's looking pretty good. The new gertee is absolutely beautiful. It looks like a funky little hut on the outside (just like all my other models), but on the inside it's way different.

Lots of good email forwards that I will scan through and post here as soon as I have a spare moment. I moved back into my wall tent to work on the campground and oversee construction, which also means I'm back to no electric or phone line. BUT.... I have a brand new outhouse!!! Thank goodness somebody sent me a box of candles last year.

Sunday, June 8, 2008

Thanks so much to everyone who wrote to inquire about the ACL website and offered to help us get it back up. We are working out a deal to get it back up at twu.net ~ I'd like to keep it at the same address since so many places link to it there. The whole server deal is in Nordica's hands, I'm just the person who fills in the pages.

Things are real hectic right now because we are rebuilding our home at the same time we're building the campground. We've been living out of suitcases up at the bunkhouse while we plan, organize, paint, landscape and construct. The office will be moved to the front of the museum and Nordica and Fred need their own gertee now (we outgrew mine somehow). I used all the new materials I had for my new gertee on the museum. It's our showcase so it had to be nice, and it's exceeded my expectations. Hopefully it's going to draw visitors and pay off as well.

We finished the exterior of the museum gertee yesterday. I added a couple extra one foot rows of materials at the top and bottom that works so well I'm making it part of my cover design. The clear plastic over the four foot center roof ring is awesome. Tim has thrown himself into the project and it shows. (It really helped that he stopped at the new yurts a glacier hiking company put up around 100 mile on the Glen. They paid 5k for a 16 footer with no floor and 14k for a 24 footer with no floor. Now he understands we just built a $15,000+ yurt.)

Note to Sean and Johnny: the pool cover works perfectly! I put a parachute under it for an extra layer and a softer interior color and feel. It looks good and will be totally secure and waterproof too since it's all one piece. Thank you! A little sign will list all the people who contributed to the museum, and you guys and a few of our other ACL supporters will definitely be on it, with just a first name and a last initial for those who prefer to remain anonymous.

I worked on it until midnight and when I stopped I thought it was maybe 10pm... I almost forget every winter what it's like to have 24 hours of daylight all through June. There was no direct sunlight because it's been cloudy and cold all week, but it was *bright*. If we keep the camp open all winter this will be a great guest gertee for viewing stars and the Northern Lights.

The first bathhouse gertee is done too, and it's adorable. It has a campshower hook-up and it will be interesting to see if anyone wants to shower in it. I'll take pics later today. So we'll have a campground/hostel/showers/cookshack and fish camp ready by Friday!? Then we'll build a new 20' gertee for my growing family. I got Fred his first bike at a garage sale, I think he needs a round race track in the middle of their house. One of the things I admire about the traditional Mongolians is that their daughters get their own gers when they grow up, they never send their children out into the world without providing them with a shelter. In the U.S., according to many prominent writers, Americans expect their government to provide "proper housing." Our free people want free HUD housing in tightly regulated communitarian compounds.

"Moreover, none of the candidates represents so-called mainstream America. In poll after poll, voters make clear that they want the normal decencies of jobs, proper housing and health care. They want their troops out of Iraq and the Israelis to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours. This is a remarkable testimony, given the daily brainwashing of ordinary Americans in almost everything they watch and read. ..." John Pilger, "After Bobby Kennedy"

Again my sincerest apologies for the ACL interruption. And I'll be on Trish and Sam's radio show this Tuesday, I'll post the links tonight.

In loving memory of my father, who would have been 75 today. He's the one who taught me how to build a "good camp" and "think." I miss you dad.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

The ACL has been down for 2 days apparently. Don't know why or how long it will stay down. I'll see what I can find out from Nordica and hopefully nothing too serious happened with our hostess! We've had free hosting at twu.net since 2001 so it's always been the safest place for all our ACL research materials because I never could have made sure I had the payements. Jess is down too, so it could be a major glitch but hopefully it's just maintenence. If it is a permanent problem then we'll have to figure out where to put it.. man I hope that doesn't happen because I'd want to revise and update every page and I just don't have the time for that right now.

Bunch of searches for the Anti Communitarian Manifesto by name today, that never happens. Almost funny that now that people are looking for it, it's gone. Would have been great for hardcopy orders, except the order info is at the ACL. And so is 2020's.. bummer.. not so funny after all.Fuel reduction (this was a thicket when I started)

People are starting to pull in to see what we're doing. One guy was in construction for 30 years and just had to tell me that he'd never seen one of these. That will happen all summer. The forrest ranger stopped by too, and I took one of his official booklets and found it to be full of usefull information. What a suprise that was. I've read so much crap put out by the U.S. government that I was ready to read pure communitarian doublespeak about saving the environoment. Instead I find they like people who cut down trees and savagely destroy and uproot plants from their natural habitat. They recommend we kill all kinds of trees and shrubs and grass and destroy nesting grounds for all kinds of insects and suggest landscaping ideas for fire breaks. It's as if the communitarians had no input whatsoever in this brochure, and yet the Dept of Agriculture was the first U.S. agency to change it's mission statement to "sustainable development" in 1992. There was a weird moment when he first pulled in cause his truck looks like a Trooper's (only yellow) and we were burning all day so it could have been a different kind of visit, but he's a nice guy and I totally respect the job he does. Plus, he was only here to visit Tim (who's been a volunteer firefighter since he was 7). Then the craziest thing was a local gal wanted to do her community service helping us build the museum. So I had a communitarian slave for 2 days. I've decided slaves slow me down.

Update on the Manifesto: We're taking the next 2 days off from CR to go over the Manifesto one last time. I just had to get into the yard before the bees got here, it's scary thrashing around in our woods in the summer, there's millions of bees and they live in the ground and everywhere. Some summers they're very vicious; the reason I didn't take the tent down last summer was because it was full of them! These aren't honey bees.. these are the mean ones that attack.

Donate Here!

About Me

2020 / TACM

Available NOW in PDF eBook

Translate

Search This Blog

I'm Niki Raapana, an independent researcher, co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) with Nordica Friedrich, co- author of 2020: Our Common Destiny and co-author of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.